User talk:Blainster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive of 2005 talk

Contents

[edit] Good tip

Thanks for cleaning up after me. Now I know. Dave (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for your work on expanding the Harvey Cox article. You might be able to do some good at John A.T. Robinson and John Shelby Spong as well. Peace, BCorr|Брайен 01:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yesselman

Dear Blainster; Thank you for the tip you posted on my User's page 1/08. I have responded on the same page.

In going over your User's page, I see we have many of the same interests and world view.

the war (or dance as the case may be} between science and religion, and philosophy.
influences (older): Heraclitus, Siddartha Gautama, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Spinoza.
influences (newer): Emerson, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Carl Jung, David Bohm, Arthur M. Young, Ken Wilber

Yesselman 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MBeychok

Blainster:

(I am so new to Wiki that I am not sure this will reach you. Please let me know if it does.)

The concerns of the public and of our regulatory agencies with what comes out of the flue gas stacks from power plants (or any other large combustion furnaces) have increased ten-fold or more during the twenty years since you worked in a power plant. A great many people have the mistaken idea that coal burning creates a great deal more total flue gas than a "cleaner" fuel like natural gas. As shown in my table, coal burning does create more flue gas, but only marginally so. I did not want to dwell on that in the text of my contribution lest I sound biased in favor of coal burning ... which I am not. I wanted the table to show the facts and to speak for itself.

Deleting the table and only leaving the comparative scf/106 of flue gas for each of the fuels pretty well "guts" my contribution because:

The credibility of my calculated results depends upon readers being able to see the compositions that I used for each fuel and to ascertain that they are typical ... not selected to bias the results. With those compositions, readers could actually perform their own calculations to check my results if they wanted to do so. Without the compositions, they could could not make independent checks.

The credibility of my results also depends upon the readers being able to see what percentage of excess combustion air I used ... again to ascertain that I did indeed use typical values. And those excess combustion air values are also needed to permit independent checks of my results.

Quite a bit of my table concerns how to convert the results into units used by some 99% of the world (the USA is the only nation still using scf and Btu's rather than metric units). Believe it or not, the vast majority of people on the planet don't know or care how many inches there are in a foot.

All steam tables contain the same data because water has a fixed set of physical and thermodynamic properties. There are literally thousands of different composition natural gases, fuel oils and coals, all with different heating values, carbon-to-hydrogen ratios, and different physical properties. That is another reason why the readers should have my table to look at rather than just the final results.

As for my table being a graphic image that is not editable, I would point out that photographs are also not editable. I don't see where that is relevant. I created that image some time ago so that I could use it on a number of Internet forums without having to cope with the plethora of markup languages in use (HTML, BB code, PHP code, Wiki markup, etc).

As for your finding the color "obtrusive", one person's "obtrusive" may be another person's "favorite color". Does the Wikipedia have a "color" standard somewhere that I haven't yet found? Or do the Wiki editors have some "color police" looking for inappropriate colors?

mbeychok 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanx

  • JA: Very nice additions, but what do people have against Bloomington, Indiana? Is there something I don't know? Jon Awbrey 05:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
{this was regarding edits made to Charles Peirce article - B.)
  • JA: Oh, I was just kidding around. There's another editor on that article who likes to delete city refs, not to mention abbreving book titles, and stuff like that. For my part I consider that destruction of info, but that's just me. I do appreciate the extra value that you added, and will eventually reconstruct the other bytes when I get around to it. Jon Awbrey 02:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publicised experiment without reputable source.

I don't see the need to discuss what is now hypothetical, because the issue is not straightforward, but I will correct the number of persons involved to what is posted on the web site reporting the study, and delete the editorial commentary in the article. You can take it from there. --Blainster 08:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The need is to understand the WP policies. The case where there is no reputable publisher for a study that is part of a TV show or a movie, etc. seems to be a very typical situation, even if it is not the current situation. The situation is very clear. We have an experiment that is made public through some media, but there is no reputable publisher. Question: Can we say something scientific about this experiment? It seems to me that the answer is NO. Otherwise, it would mean that we break a rule, which is necessary to guarantee some minimal quality, only because the experiment was highly publicised. Perhaps we can mention the experiment, but only if we can find something that is well supported, but yet not scientific, that is interesting to say about this experiment. If it was only publicised for its scientific content and there nothing else to say about it, then the whole thing should be ignored. I want to know if you agree, and if not how do you justify it in terms of the policies. --Lumiere 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cassette deck

I was also tempted to remove the apparent nonsense, but on second thoughts I thought it was an attempt at a genuine question, just in very very mangled English. I couldn't make it out however - so my response, though admittedly flippant, was meant to suggest that if it could be rephrased a sensible answer might be forthcoming. It's not usually a good idea to remove stuff from talk pages unless it really is obvious vandalism - I didn't think this was. Graham 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rendering of math formulas

Blainster, thanks for your note about having found a way to create somewhat smaller font characters using the Wikipedia math markup. Although, they still are not as neat and compact as the WikiCities math markup produces, they are an improvement. I have a few questions:

  • How did you manage to get smaller characters under the square root sign?
  • Now that you have seen my text-based table of flue gas emissions and the explanatory lead-in discussion to the table, do you think it would now fit in with the article on fossil fuel power plants?
  • Is there a better way of replying to a message received in one's User Talk page other than going to the responder's User Talk page to post a reply? In other words, can I reply on my own User Talk page to your message received on my User Talk page ... and somehow automatically alert you to my reply?

Just for your information, I posted my suggestion to Bugzilla about making the WikiCities math markup available as an option on Wikipedia. They have accepted it for consideration and it is Bug #4915.
mbeychok 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments that might clear up some confusion:
  • The writeup on how to use TeX markup is the same at WikiCities as at Wikipedia because they both use TeX.
  • Note that the developers at Bugzilla named my suggested bug as "Use Wikicities' TeX fonts for rendering math on Wikimedia projects". That indicates to me that the fonts used at WikiCities are smaller than the fonts used at Wikipedia even though they both use the same markup methodology.
  • I did a search here on Wikipedia for TeX and for LaTex and found articles for both of them. If you read those, it becomes obvious that there are literally dozens of versions and implementations of Tex. It is my guess that WikiCities just has a version that uses a smaller font.
Thanks for your help and interest. mbeychok 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comma Johanneum

Hello. I've been working on expanding the Comma Johanneum article, and I noticed that a few months back you made some edits for clarity. In the text I added, I'm sure I've said a few things which only I can make sense of, no matter how hard I tried to make it all comprehensible. If you'd like to check it again, I'd be grateful.

Best wishes for further editing,

Anville 08:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004

Greetings. You were involved in the discussion regarding the deletion of certain lists as copyright violations. TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 was determined to be a copyright violation, and was deleted. I restored the article, but removed the list itself, simply describing the list so as to avoid copyright problems. The article is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 (2nd nomination). If you'd like to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cirrus Field

It was taken in a largw wheat field about half a mile from my home. :) It has provided me with some great pictures.

http://blaisefrazier.zoto.com/galleries/lunaskies/

Pictures 2, 3, and 5 were taken there as well.

http://blaisefrazier.zoto.com/galleries/lunalandscape/

Pictures 1, 2, and 3 were taken there.

PiccoloNamek 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamarande

I could play the laywer and point out that this is a personal userpage and not an article, but you are right and I will provide the proper links in due time. Notice that some quotes are famous because some important persons REPEATED them, and not because that person invented them. Strangely, I allways heard the quote: "There are only two things who are infinte..." as being of Einstein, but wikiqute does not place them at his page. But if you search for "universe" his name and the quote appears. Cheers Flamarande 20:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have found it! It is (buried among many others) in his page in WikiQuote: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I'm not sure about the former." Its a bit diffrent from the one I had, but I corrected the quote in my userpage. Flamarande 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, I confused Wikicommons with Wikiquote (what a mess, but I corrected the messages above) well to clarefy it once for it all: all his quotes (and this one, you have to look for it, but is there) are in Wikiquote. Sorry for the mixup. As for the quote: "I am become death the destroyer of worlds." it is from ancient hindu text, but it was popularized by Oppenheimer. It also is in wikiquote. Flamarande 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It should be noted...

I've recently added this phrase as an example of weasel terminology. If it survives, we'll have a style guideline to cite when removing it. I agree with you that "Some people say..." and "It should be noted that..." are wordy and meanigless POV couch phrases that should be eliminated wherever they exist. I've used this Google search with some success at hunting them down in the past. Good luck! --Ryan Delaney talk 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JK

Thank you for your additions to Jiddu Krishnamurti. If you cannot find a quotation, I recommend to use a google search "site:www.url.com" on [1]. I didn't add this link to the external links section, because I do not know if the site is violating someone else's copyright. [2] Cheers. --Mallarme 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Canon

The LDS section (and the entire article) isn't actually about "beliefs" at all, it's about the LDS canon, and I guess my clarifications were meant to simply note that the PGP is disputed by others, which I suppose is obvious to most, but not all, people. However your edits were fine and the overall point, made in the summary line of your edit, was well taken. Nhprman UserLists 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about "Feynman's Tips on Physics"

Hi. Regarding your recent edit of the Feynman Lectures on Physics page: Michael A. Gottlieb and Ralph Leighton are co-authors of Feynman's Tips on Physics in the very same way that Matt Sands and Robert Leighton are co-authors of The Feynman Lectures on Physics . The editor of Feynman's Tips on Physics is Adam Black. Please check the ISBN listing. Thanks. Michael A. Gottlieb

[edit] Vestax VRX-2000 Vinyl Recorder

OK, thanks, I didn't realise I had to blank it. I'll do likewise to the other articles the user has posted. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your recent edits to Revelation. They improved the pov problems with that statement in a greay way. --Hetar 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Seminar

Thanks for pointing it out; there is a new template now, I've changed it. Saint|swithin 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root page

If you are going to add these navigation boxes to many articles, you might take some care in placing them so they don't affect the page formatting and run into the text. Part of a good encyclopedia is good page design. Some articles have pictures, content boxes, and other illustrations arranged carefully so that they complement the article. You placed boxes in Compact Cassette and Phonograph in an apparent haphazard or hasty fashion. Please be more careful, or the additions will spark negative reactions before it can be determined whether they are useful or not. --Blainster 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lindosland"

I was not actually so hasty, and did experiment a bit on these pages realising that the images already there were causing an untidy result. Your changes are probably an improvement, and I'm grateful for any help, but of course the final appearance does depend on the page width you view with. It also seems to me that there may be problems with Wikipedia in the control we have over image placement, for example right-justified images don't seem to come in line with right justified text boxes. In general I like to put the navigational template first on the page, with the vague idea that this might make it easier to find by an automated system or software bot, but this is probably not necessary. Do you think the system helps on these audio pages or do you dislike it? In searching around I found that like many big topics Sound reproduction has many pages that are not easily found, and then on finding Sound recording I wondered whether the two should be combined, as many items of equipment are used for recording and reproduction. --Lindosland 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Following Lindos reply on my page— fair enough. On pages with no image at the top, I think your navbox works pretty well. When there is an image there, placement requires more judgement, and individuals opinions will vary as to what is best. I have noticed that the Contents box self-adjusts its width, and it can be a good place to put the navbox, at least for screen sizes of 800x600 to 1024x786, which should cover typical screens today except for hand-held displays. The question which will remain is, how do we deal with a proliferation of navigation methods (categories, portals, various navbox templates, "See also" lists, etc.) I guess we will just have to keep experimenting, and probably several methods will coexist. --Blainster 19:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about careful placement and have today placed several navboxes alongside the contents box just as you suggest, being a little more careful after your prompt! How to deal with a proliferation of methods - replace them with the Rootpage concept! I dislike big navigational boxes/series templates as they clutter the page and are too confusing to be of help. My scheme, with its nested listing, seems much neater and more effective, and now recruits the idea of the navbox and takes it further while attempting to encourage coordinated editing. Regards --Lindosland 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobbying for smaller TeX font as an optional choice

This is an equation created with Wikipedia's TeX font for math markup:

Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;\sqrt{\bigg(\frac{\;\,g_c\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{2}{k+1}\bigg)^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}

This is the same equation created using WikiCities' TeX font for the very same math markup:

Image:ChokedFlowCAPUS.png

It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller than the Wikipedia's TeX font. In my opinion, the WikiCities font is also much neater and tidier. What I mean by neater and tidier is that it is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses equations is more balanced.

Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations (within the limited display screen width) than does the Wikipedia font.

I submitted a request to Bugzilla about a month ago asking that Wikipedia make available the smaller WikiCities font as an alternate option ... not to replace the font now used by Wikipedia, but only to offer the smaller WikiCities font as an optional choice to Wikipedians. My request was assigned the bug number 4915. Anyone can vote in favor of proceeding with the bug request at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and thus far I am the only one who has voted to proceed.

If you agree with me that the smaller font should be offered as an alternate, please visit the bugzilla page at Bugzilla Bug 4915 and scroll down to the page bottom where is says "Vote for this bug" and do so. If you are not already registered with bugzilla, it will ask you to do that first ... but it only takes a minute to do so.

If it isn't correct for me to lobby you for the smaller font, please let me know. Thanks and please vote.
mbeychok 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] integral theory renaming

Hi Blainster! Please vote on renaming Integral theory. — goethean ॐ 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William A. Dembski

This has been discussed at length on the Talk page. Note also that being qualified as a scientist doesn't stop one from being a pseudoscientist, any more than being qualified as a historian stopped David Irving from spouting unhistorical nonsense. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (and the compliments). I also argued against the category, but was eventually persuaded. I don't know if the the discussion is still on the Talk page or has been archived, but I'd be interested in your response to it.
With regard to qualifications, it could be argued that it's more important to label someone with qualifications as a pseudoscientist, precisely because their views are more likely to be accepted without question. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Input

Hi. i appreciate what you wrote on my site. i wanted to let you know that i am a student in an intro to philosophy course...one of our assignments is to write an objective 200-word statement talking about certain subjects...as you can see i'm not a very objective... i'm learning though.... we are just learning how to use wikipedia for maybe if we need help/information in the future. Anyways. thanks again. --Lfdejong 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabir

Did you check this this source as well? Anyways, I'm fine with the current compromise version that gives due representation to both sides of the argument. --ManiF 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the correction to the WP:CFDS to WP:CFD correction, I usually only deal with the CFDS's and they are generally pretty uncontroversial. — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of category

It wasn't actually my redirect (I just fixed it from an even more broken state), but thanks for doing the right thing with it. TSP 21:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Warnock

Hi. Um, I'm not convinced about this article move. I've put a note in more detail at Talk:Helen Mary Warnock. Cheers, JackyR 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving of Re-recording

Please move articles only and exclusively when the original name is actually needed by another topic. Right now there's no Re-recording except for a redirect. What was the reason for the move? Because "some other topic may appear there sometime" isn't exactly a good reason. Not that it matters much, but it seems like total moot to me. —Michiel Sikma, 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC) PS: maybe we should ask an admin to move Re-recording (sound/film) to Re-recording?

[edit] RFID Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together fighting those who spam Wikipedia. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Actual size" thumbnail

Hi :) In reference to the thumbnail of the Compact Cassette on the article of that name, your edit summary says you've put it back to being large (300px) so that it's close to actual size. I've no wish to get into an edit war, so I've not made it smaller again, but I do think it wrecks the page for people with lower screen resolutions, by consuming potentially half of the available content space. (Some people still use 640x480!) This lack of accessibility is a shame. I'd see your point though, if it were possible to make things look actual size; that might be useful. But it's not what you've done here by specifying a number of pixels. The tape looks about half actual size on my widescreen laptop, for example, because it has very small pixels. If it looks actual size to you, that's a factor of your monitor. I'd suggest taking a new photo of a tape alongside a ruler or reference object. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks everyone

re: Columbia Data Products. I was the originator of the article. Thanks for cleaning up after me. It's curious that the 'IBM_PC` article still refers to Compaq as producing the first PC clone. Yet another urban myth going round and round. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 08:20, June 17, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experienced engineers

Blainster: See my response at User talk:Mbeychok/MRB's Survey of Wikipedian Engineers to the comments you added there. - mbeychok 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] They've killed the List of famous failures in science and engineering! You Bastards!!

Mmx1 is taking the fight that I have over the F-14 and F-111 to the failure page, and he has nominated them for deletion. The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page. Mmx1 has reversed the F-14 page to state that it is not, and has never been designed as a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and is not accepting any contrary citations up to and including a F-14 test pilot, Janes Defence, and Aviation Week. He is apparently taking revenge against other pages. Please go to the deletion page and tell the administrators what is going on. Look at the patterns of MMx. He regular accuses others of gross misinformation and summarily reverts most edits as a self-appointed judge of all truth, but in fact should not be allowed this leeway. --matador300 10:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbed wire

Hi

when i put the barbed wire (rock band) article on the main server, i was advised by a mod to make it my talk page instead. then the article was removed from my talk page. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impervius (talk • contribs) 05:20, July 3, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add comments to bottom of talks

Thanks for the tip. Robert K S 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category Deletions>reply

They are trying to delete this group of categories for the 4th time. Closing soon.

Thanks for the heads up on the Category deletion proposals – I see the Category Police are at it again!
Be healthy,
Michael David 12:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the Celebrity death categories were kept because of no consensus. I'm relatively new to Wiki; how often, and how many times, can these same Categories be brought up for deletion? Michael David 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey notifications

Hi Blainster, in regard to notifying other users about active proposals and surveys, I wanted to encourage you to examine Wikipedia:Survey notification, a proposal for guidelines for doing so. Kurieeto 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOE

this link may help. — goethean ॐ 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I screwed up!

Hello,

I created a new Category today "Suicides by poison". After I had saved the Page I realized it should probably be "Suicides by poisoning". Do I have to go through the whole Category Renaming process to change it?

Help!

Michael David 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I think I'll wait and see. I'm really not in the mood right now to go through the whole discussion & voting process. These are grammatical issues we're talking about. And the "Suicides by methods" was here when I started. But you are right, it needs changing for the same reason. Michael David 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Crimson

The synonym makes perfect sense. The devil is considered to be the king of all demons. Red is a biblical color used of in reference to the devil and hell in general. So, King crimson is referring to the devil. Beelzebub is simply another name for the devil. The words mean the same, and therefore, they are synonymous.--24.72.197.148 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penrose Comments

Hey, Blainster, you removed my comments on the intention of homosexuals to legitimize their behavior by insinuating that famous people are gay. Do you think that such comments have no importance? If so, how important are the comments that you don't delete, such as the anonymous "I heard of him being gay. Is that true?"? Was that comment worthy of retention? Yes, it seems that such a comment is allowed to stay, but my comment on intentionality and purposiveness is deleted. What if there was an article on User:Blainster and someone wrote, "I heard of him being a shoplifter. Is that true?" Would you retain that one?Lestrade 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] I did Not Vandalise!

What I did was pinpoint the episode that Homer asks the question!

[edit] Open-Theist Responder Comments Sept.7

Hello, Blainster. Sorry we are not getting off on the right foot about Open Theism. I still don't follow why the 'Con' section is little but 'Pro' rebuttals in content and rather weak. I still don't get why every edit made has to be substantiated with a cited reference when there is little in the way of such referencing in the entire Open Theism Topic Page written and edited by who knows who, which is so biased against Settled Theism as to make a mockery of the concept of neutral objectivity. The article as it has stood and now stands, without even modest amendment, not only does injustice to Open Theism as a robust alternative, but gives even less credence to the Settled Theism position. I have personally read and researched most of the books in both 'Pro' and 'Con' sections, yet only find 'Pro' edits acceptable but not 'Con'. Help me out here so I know how best to proceed in fairness to you, the site and potential readers. Much thanks, Theo. 17:49, September 7, 2006 User:70.59.198.127

[edit] Your advice needed

Please check out [3] and weigh in your opinion. bunix 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Gamow

Thanks for the edits and the work on the books and titles. Good work. Rossp 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)rossp


[edit] Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [4]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? 129.127.28.3 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Cofer Black

Ah, I'm glad that the policy of wikiyfing the mention of every year is now defunct. I always thought it mucked up the text. Thanks too, for helping to organize the article. Alcarillo 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: style

You referenced the style manual re: mdash and ndash, and the document you referenced supports me as right and you as wrong. Moreover, I cannot get a response from you, but that may be due to nuances of Wikipedia - or not. Can you clarify yourself?


[edit] RfC

You may like to weigh in here [5] as I notice you have an interest in this page. bunix 11:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Pearson

Thanks for your edits on Karl Pearson - it reads a lot better now.

Johnbibby 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle name

Yes, 99% of people you ask on the street will say "Jimmy Carter" and not "James Earl Carter". How do you determine what's best for historical people that have no name recognition? I follow what is in other encyclopedia entries such as Britannica and the Columbia encyclopedia, and whats in "who's who". Also for Jimmy Carter, the full name is a redirect to let people know that the full name is recognized and doing that blocks people from moving the entry. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Needed

You have responded to a move debate. There is a related debate where your opinion would be useful at header tags. TonyTheTiger 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Johnson

Do you know how to swap the Robert Johnson and Robert Johnson (disambiguation) pages without losing history and without creating inordinate double redirects? TonyTheTiger 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please chime in on the pollution discussion at Talk:Fossil fuel power plant

Blainster: I think you should chime in on the Pollution section's discussion of environmental impacts between myself and User:Sven42. Regards, - mbeychok 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Fossil fuel power plant

I have added comments to the Talk Page about fossil fuel power plants. I was wondering why trouble is taken in converting steam into water after the steam turbine, only to be turned right back into steam again later in the furnace. You could just send the steam from the steam turbine straight back into the furnace. I thought you may be able to educate me as to why this is not done. *Just thought* Is it because the vacuum created by the condensing water helps drive the turbines faster?--JB001 14:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need 4 articles on the same subject?

Wikipedia now has these 4 articles, all on the same subject:

Do we really need all of these? In my opinion, this sort of thing reflects badly on Wikipedia. What can we do to get these four articles merged?? - mbeychok 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit at Mole

The Minor Barnstar
For finally correcting the value of Mole and saving me and many others from widespread misconception :) æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You have no idea. From where I come, I was taught the incorrect value(6.023) for 3 years. At such minor doubt, I turned to Wikipedia, nd it was wrong :) That is why the Barnstar! --æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Limb Edit

Hi, I saw you changed the history section back to what it had been a couple days ago by taking out a new paragrpah. I'm new to wikipedia and didn't really understand why you made this change. Could you give me a little more detail on my talk page? Thanks Nfk17 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive NT

Thanks for your note. The book is being published by Cornerstone. I have a prepublication copy and got permission to use material from it, but it shouldn't be available on Amazon until the summer. Tim 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for advice on categorisation

Thank you for your advice on how to categorise correcly in Wikipedia. I am not very computer-savvy, so tips like this are always welcome. ACEOREVIVED 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your WP:AIV post

Hi Blainster! I noticed you placed a request for protection for Isaac Newton at AIV. In future, it's best to place requests for protection at WP:RFPP, where they will get attended to. Thanks :) – riana_dzasta 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage mistake

Thank you so much for checking for my own accuracy! Unfortunately, I don't understand the mistake I made. what's wrong with [[User:Ephileli/POV|My POV]]?

I'm about to start reading Siddhartha (novel). Have you read it? --Ephilei 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierce

Thanks for letting me know about Slim Margin and the others. :-) I've reverted to a December version, protected the page, and left a note for you on talk. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hmm, the semi-protection didn't appear to be working that time. I'll try re-applying it. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Springs Massacreeee

Hello. About six months ago I penned this article, Rock Springs Massacre, which I have been working hard to cleanup and reference and de-POVify, now being, of course, a much more experienced Wikipedian (I think I wrote that about two weeks after registering). I remembered you giving some helpful tips and edits in the past so I thought I would contact you. Anyway, its up for peer review, and as I said I have been working to improve it, any input or edits you could provide would be greatly appreciated. I am hoping to one day make this a Featured Article Candidate, it may be up to GA as is, would be my fourth now if I nominate it, what do you think? Is it ready? Thanks in advance. IvoShandor 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Banned user Jon Awbrey

This banned user continually makes new sockpuppets (the latest is User:Samboner) and continues to edit Charles Peirce. Please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. It seems our defense is to keep the article semi-protected and keep blocking the new usernames as he creates them. I also notified Jayjg who has been dealing with Awbrey for a long time. --Blainster 16:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I feel more comfortable letting Jayig handle this, if he has experience with this situation. But let me know if there's anything you'd like me to do. --Fang Aili talk 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've blocked the latest 5 socks. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Paul Tillich and Calvinism

Was Tillich so much a 'Lutheran', or in actuallity from the German Evangelical tradition (the union of German Lutheran and German Reformed churches in Germany)? My understanding was that he was brought to America connected with the Evangelical Synod of North America (the same denomination of the Niebuhr brothers), which subsequently became part of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, and then finally part of the United Church of Christ. Also, I suspect one could probably make the case that Tillich's influence was probably greater on moderate-to-liberal Reformed type folks (the United Church of Christ, moderate-to-liberal Presbyterians, etc.) than it has been on Lutherans. I will confess that I don't have much at hand in the way of sources/citations for any of this at the moment. Emerymat 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/User_talk%7EBlainster_af05.html"